“Let us not deal him a deadly blow.”: Heb. לֹא נַכֶּנוּ נָפֶשׁ. Literally, let us not smite him the soul. [This is equivalent to] מַכַּת נֶפֶשׁ, [let us not deal him] a deadly blow, which means death. [From Targum Onkelos]

לא נכנו נפש: מכת נפש זו היא מיתה:

22. And Reuben said to them, "Do not shed blood! Cast him into this pit, which is in the desert, but do not lay a hand upon him," in order to save him from their hand[s], to return him to his father.

to save him: The Holy Spirit testifies for Reuben that he said this only to save him, so that he would [be able to] come and take him out of there. He said, “I am the firstborn and the eldest of them all. The sin will be attributed only to me.” [from Gen. Rabbah 84:15]

now the pit was empty-there was no water in it: Since it says: “now the pit was empty,” do I not know that there was no water in it? For what purpose did the Torah write,“there was no water in it” ? [To inform us that] there was no water in it, but there were snakes and scorpions in it. [From Shab. 22a, Chag. 3a]

If his intent was to save him from their hands, and to return Yosef to his father, then why cast him into a pit full of snakes and scorpions? Chizkuni suggests that there were actually two pits. The one Reuven suggested with הַבּוֹר הַזֶּה didn't have snakes and scorpions, but once Reuven left, they cast him into a different pit.

This might seem somewhat farfetched, but on the other hand, I could point to some language in the midrash which might in fact indicate this:

Thus, there were two pits, one filled with pebbles and the other filled with snakes and scorpions. While the derashamight be from the extra word bor, as various meforshei midrash suggest. But textual issues aside, I think it might be prompted by the desire to solve the narrative issue of just how Reuven was trying to save Yosef.

I would suggest something simpler. Either that when Reuven suggested this, he did not look into the pit, and by the time they lowered Yosef into the pit, Reuven had already left; or, even the brothers were unaware that there were snakes and scorpions in the pit, and the intent of the midrash is to show even further Divine protection.

Gur Aryeh asks a related question. He contrasts Reuven's intent to save Yosef with the gemara in Yevamot 121a which says anyone cast into a pit filled with snakes and scorpions will surely die.

He answers that the gemara in Yevamot is dealing with a pit filled to the brim with snakes and scorpions, while the midrash only speaks of a pit in which snakes and scorpions yesh bo. Meanwhile, the brothers believed that this would kill Yosef indirectly (and thus Yehuda later speaks of not killing Yosef), but Reuven throughout thought that the snakes would likely not kill Yosef immediately, and so he would have time to go back and save him. It works out nicely, but it involves adding a lot of details and motivations which are not clearly spoken out in any midrash, at each stage. This is what often causes me to regard Gur Aryeh's explanations as neo-midrash. In this case, many of these appear as logical consequences of previous assessments, and assertions of Rashi/midrash. So perhaps.

It was taught: R. Akiba related, 'l was once travelling on board a ship when I observed a ship in distress,46 and was much grieved on account of a scholar who was on it. (And who was it? — R. Meir.) When I subsequently landed in the province of Cappadocia47 he came to me and sat down and discussed matters of halachah. "My son", I said to him, "who rescued you?" — "One wave" he answered me, "tossed me to another, and the other to yet another until [the sea] cast me48 on the dry land". At that hour I exclaimed: How significant are the words of the Sages who ruled [that if a man fell into] water which has [a visible] end, [his wife] is permitted [to marry again; but if into] water which has no [visible] end, she is forbidden'. Our Rabbis taught: If a man fell into a lion's den, no evidence49 may be legally tendered concerning him;50 but if into a pit full of serpents and scorpions, evidence49 may legally be tendered concerning him.50 R. Judah b. Bathyra ruled: Even [if he fell] into a pit full of serpents and scorpions, no evidence49 may legally be tendered concerning him,50 since the possibility must be taken into consideration

that he might be a charmer.1 But the first Tanna?2 — Owing to the pressure3 they4 injure him.5

I am not sure whether the diyuk in the word מלאה is spot on. That word need not mean "filled to the brim", but can merely mean containing. On the other hand, the gemara does explain the position of the Tanna Kamma that אגב איצצא מזקי ליה, and there would certainly be greater pressure if it was entirely filled with snakes and scorpions. Back to the first hand, the point may be that it is a more confined space, such that he would end up touching or pressing against one, not that there are snakes and scorpions over every inch of his body, and then some.

I would add something more than this to the above paragraph. Recall that Gur Aryeh tries to make the distinction between the gemara, where the pit is malei with snakes and scorpions, and the pit mentioned by Rashi, which they are merely yesh bo. However -- and here we see the importance of looking up the sources in the original -- in Midrash Rabba, which precedes Rashi in stating that there were snakes and scorpions, it is stated as:

Note the phrase מלא שרפים ועקרבים. The diyuk doesn't work if both sources declare the pits as malei with snakes and scorpions!
Here is how the Taz deals with it:

That is, the snakes and scorpions were in cracks and crevices, such that Reuven did not see them there. For otherwise, how in the world would he be saving Yosef?!

I would note the alternate derasha by Rabbi Acha in Midrash Rabba, that bor rek means that the pit / descendants of Yaakov were empty, and ain bo mayim means that there was no Torah in it, for Torah is compared to water.

Several years ago, my father suggested a similar peshat based only on the portion which is cited by Rashi. The bor was empty, such that there was nothing in it. Ain bo mayim. And mayim always refers to Torah. One would think that if something is empty of Torah, it is simply empty, in a neutralstate. But no. תלמוד לומר אין בו מים, מים אין בו אבל נחשים ועקרבים יש בו. If one is empty of Torah, all sorts of evil influences enter in its place.

7 comments:

The Alschich I read last week suggested it was a test. The brothers knew that someone who is supremely righteous would not be attacked by wild animals. Yosef was walking around acting supremely righteous and lording it over them so they figured they would test him in the pit. If he survived until they finished their meal, he was right and they would acknowledge his leadership.

Rav Chaim of Volozhin (as quoted in Rabbi Yehuda Leib Maimon's Sarei Hameah) said that the reason Reuven is credited with saving Yosef (and not Yehuda) is that despite the snakes and scorpions, Reuven kept Yosef in Eretz Yisrael. Yehuda, who although got Yosef to Mitzrayim, where he eventually achieved greatness, led to the exile, which was worse.

R' Waxman,Are you sure the midrash isn't offering two different points of view, either that the pit had snakes [and, presumably, like the Taz, didn't see snakes in the crevices] and the other opinion suggesting the pit of Reuven was safe, but the brothers thwarted him?

The reason I believe this to be the case is because it dovetails beautifully with the two ways of reading the p'sukim leading up to the pit. First it says Reuven saves Yosef by saying "lo nakenu nafesh", then the next verse starts again with "vayomer Reuven", where he suggests this pit. (The p'shat, I would assume is that Reuven picked a specific pit - while the brothers suggested killing Yosef and throwing his body in 'one of the pits' - BECAUSE Reuven wanted the pit that had no water. Had they thrown Yosef into a pit filled with water, his survival chances decrease considerably!)

Anyway, the question is what's in the gap between the two statements of Reuven. Possibility 1: the brothers agreed not to kill Yosef - Reuven saved him - but Reuven then concocted this plot of the pit to rescue him, thereby getting credit for saving Yosef. Had there been no plot and rescue, Reuven would not have had the opportunity to shine before Yaakov. (Thus the medrash regarding 'if Reuven had known his actions would be recorded...') Possibility 2: the brothers rejected Reuven's legitimate plea to spare Yosef entirely, so Reuven was forced to go to a backup plan of temporarily throwing Reuven into a (safe, water-free) pit and rescue him later.

Thus, one view suggests Reuven could have saved Yosef easily, but his incompetence or arrogance led to problems. The other opinion sees Reuven in a much better light, but suggests his attempt was thwarted by the brothers. The midrash takes this divergence to the next step. The first opinion says Reuven was incompetent, and failed to notice the "safe" pit had snakes and scorpions. The second opinion says he was diligent, but the brothers thwarted his plan. A perfect parallel!

Just my two bits.

KT,Hillel

PS: I saw your follow-up post re the firmament, but I'm still digesting it, will need to read the post a few more times and try to look up the Yerushalmi before having anything sensible to say. But thanks for following up, it's much appreciated!

Overheard: What do you call that again?
-
Older fellow with glasses: I see that book in your taliis bag, called "Forgiveness". What is it about? New Age Guy: It is about how you have to forgive all t...

Recent Posts

YESHIVA WORLD NEWS

Followers

about

parshablog is published by (rabbi) josh waxman (joshwaxman [at] yahoo [dot] com), a grad student in Revel, a grad student in a Phd program in computer science at CUNY. i recently received semicha from RIETS. this blog is devoted to parsha as well as whatever it is i am currently learning.